Council gets earful on marijuana bill

Speakers slam tactic of OK'ing bill only to repeal

Sep. 11, 2012

Loading Photo Galleries ...

Written by

The City Council meeting on Monday night was standing room only as the issue of marijuana decriminalization was discussed. / Bruce E. Stidham/For the News-Leader

More

ADVERTISEMENT

When Springfield City Council approved a bill two weeks ago limiting the penalties for marijuana possession, several members made clear that they did so only to repeal it at the first opportunity.

Monday, 18 speakers signed up to tell council members what they thought of that idea. By and large, it wasn’t complimentary.

“Such a tactic is showing the voting public your distrust in them and makes a mockery of the initiative process,” said Daryl Bertrand, who described himself as a “grateful former medical cannabis user.”

Council members voted 6-3 to adopt the marijuana ordinance Aug. 27. Advanced by citizen petition, it limits the fine for minor marijuana possession to $150 and prevents law enforcement officials from arresting people for marijuana possession alone or sending such cases to state court.

One bill on the council’s Monday agenda, sponsored by four council members and supported by at least two others, would repeal the ordinance entirely. Three other options, drafted at the request of Councilman Doug Burlison and Mayor Bob Stephens, would make less significant changes.

A vote is scheduled in two weeks. Monday, several speakers said they’re willing to compromise but said a repeal undermines the intent of the marijuana petition and the process outlined in the City Charter.

Maranda Reynolds, who spearheaded efforts to draft and circulate the petition, said the charter guarantees citizens the “power to propose any ordinance ... and to adopt or reject the same at the polls.”

“It does not say they’ll have that power only if council feels like granting it to them,” she said, adding that the more than 2,100 signatures gathered show “it’s clear this issue matters to the people of Springfield.”

A repeal, said speaker Matthew Scott, “could be perceived as a gross abuse of the initiative petition provisions.”

Fred Ellison echoed that statement, criticizing what he characterized as the council’s repeated attempts to deflect citizen petitions.

“I think we ought to welcome the opportunity to have some of these discussions ... and be willing to talk about them in an open dialogue,” Ellison said.

(Page 2 of 3)

Multiple speakers said the prohibition on marijuana was politically motivated. It does more harm than good, they said, while robbing residents of a medically useful substance.

“People who are dying of cancer are being locked in cages” for using marijuana, said Karinda Thompson. “What can these sick and dying people take instead?”

Her emotional appeal appeared to do little to sway council members. Instead, Councilman Jeff Seifried pointed out that, according to current police department policy, no one is being jailed in Springfield if their only crime is possessing a small amount of marijuana.

He made a similar point when questioning speaker Zachary Kiser, who said he recently had been prosecuted for marijuana possession.

“In the end this cost me a job and about $1,000,” said Kiser. He acknowledged, however, that the conviction would be removed from his record if he completes his probation successfully.

City Attorney Dan Wichmer said the charter allows the council to adopt a petition-based law and then change it like any other ordinance. If voters disapprove, he said, they can force a referendum election to overturn the council’s decision by gathering signatures — about 2,100 would be needed — within 30 days.

Bertrand and several others said that’s what they intend to do if the law is repealed.

The threat of a lawsuit, too, was raised.

Dan Viets, a Columbia attorney and marijuana advocate, said the City Charter requires the council to pass an initiative petition or send it to a public vote.

“Pass it and repeal it was not the third option,” he said, suggesting the move could be ruled illegal.

The meeting at times grew heated as council members engaged in terse exchanges with speakers.

Councilman Jerry Compton took issue with Reynolds’ complaint that council members had not responded to emails or to an invitation to attend a town hall meeting supporters organized.

Compton said the town hall fell the same time as previously scheduled events for Neighborhood Night Out. As far as some of the emails, “When they start threatening us, I choose not to respond,” he said.

(Page 3 of 3)

“If they’re getting nasty email then they must have done something to really piss someone off,” Megan Cook said after the meeting. “That’s a cue to listen, not to shut down. Someone cared enough to send that message.”

Arwen Olena, whose father spoke during the meeting, said council members seemed set in their ways.

“They didn’t seem open to discussion,” Olena said. “They’d made up their minds.”

She and Cook both thought the fact that virtually everyone at the meeting spoke in favor of reduced penalties for marijuana was a good sign for the measure, were it to go to voters.

Marlys Schoenwetter disagreed.

The only person to speak in favor of repealing the petition-based bill Monday, Schoenwetter said she thought she spoke for a majority of Springfield residents.

“There may be 1,200 people who support this (more than 2,100 signed the petition) but there would be a larger amount against it,” she told council. “Marijuana use is illegal. That’s the bottom line for me ... I would support your decision to repeal it.”

OTHER ACTION

In other action Monday, the City Council: • Approved City Utilities’ proposed 2013 budget, as well as a series of water rate increases that will boost average residential bill by about $5 a month in October 2013, followed by similar increases in 2014 and 2015. • Held public hearings on a pair of bills reallocating a portion of the city’s hotel-motel tax forfeited by the Wonders of Wildlife museum in 2011. Emily Fox, of the Discovery Center, and Leah Hamilton, of the Springfield Regional Arts Council, both encouraged the council to approve a plan allocating 40 percent of WOW’s share toward existing debt while allowing 60 percent to be used for new projects. Brian Perdue, a member of the Citizens Sales Tax Oversight Committee, said all of the money should go to paying for Jordan Valley Park and Mediacom Ice Park, which receive some hotel-motel tax funding but also require significant subsidies from the city’s general fund.